ArticleActa biomaterialia2014
Near-infrared fluorescence imaging as an alternative to bioluminescent bacteria to monitor biomaterial-associated infections.
Article in Acta biomaterialia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Folic acid functionalized aggregation-induced emission nanoparticles for tumor cell targeted imaging and photodynamic therapy.RSC advances · 2022Article
- Applications of smartphone-based near-infrared (NIR) imaging, measurement, and spectroscopy technologies to point-of-care (POC) diagnostics.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2021Review
- ZnO Nanostructures for Drug Delivery and Theranostic Applications.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Scaffold-based anti-infection strategies in bone repair.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2015Review
- In vivo monitoring of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infections and antimicrobial therapy by [18F]fluoro-deoxyglucose-MicroPET in a mouse model.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Biomaterial-associated infection is one of the most common complications related to the implantation of any biomedical device. Several in vivo imaging platforms have emerged as powerful diagnostic tools to longitudinally monitor biomaterial-associated infections in small animal models. In this study, we directly compared two imaging approaches: bacteria engineered to produce luciferase to generate bioluminescence and reactive oxygen species (ROS) imaging of the inflammatory response associated with the infected implant. We performed longitudinal imaging of bioluminescence associated with bacteria strains expressing plasmid-integrated luciferase driven by different promoters or a strain with the luciferase gene integrated into the chromosome. These luminescent strains provided an adequate signal for acute (0-4 days) monitoring of the infection, but the bioluminescence signal decreased over time and leveled off at 7 days post-implantation. This loss in the bioluminescence signal was attributed to changes in the metabolic activity of the bacteria. In contrast, near-infrared fluorescence imaging of ROS associated with inflammation to the implant provided sensitive and dose-dependent signals of biomaterial-associated bacteria. ROS imaging exhibited higher sensitivity than the bioluminescence imaging and was independent of the bacteria strain. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging of inflammatory responses represents a powerful alternative to bioluminescence imaging for monitoring biomaterial-associated bacterial infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.